No, it's never been about the "right to sexuality" for me, and I have never said anything about denying homosexuals the right to be gay. I've never argued anything remotely close to that, so you are clearly misinformed.
You are such a fucking liar.
If we do something to redefine marriage by law, and it becomes based on an individuals "right" to sexuality, then we have established the parameters there, and we can't go moving them later when we're more uncomfortable with some immorality we hadn't considered. And trust me, there will be immoralities we haven't considered, and appeals for 'exception' to allow 'marriage' to be defined any number of odd and ridiculous ways we never dreamed of.
Now tell us how that meant something other than what it clearly means.
We have already established this "right to sexuality" or to engage in consensual homosexual sex under the 14th. Now fucking answer the questions. Why hasn't this lead to overturning laws against stat rape, incest or bestiality?
No, that has never been my argument. Homosexual marriage will lead to other sexually deviant marriages, and they will have to be protected under the 14th, because we've defined the parameters of marriage based on sexual behaviors. This is about marriage, not homosexuality.
That's what I said, Ditzy. If homosexual marriage must lead to these other things then why hasn't it lead to that from Lawrence? Is there some reason that only a marriage ruling must set precedent? Where the fuck did you get that from
I understand what the 14th says, and the fundamental purpose for it. If we establish a law which grants some 'right' to a group of people on the basis of what kind of sex they have, then we MUST apply the 14th and extend the same 'right' to any other kind of sex people have, because that is the basis on which the law was established. Either marriage can be perverted on the basis of someone's sexuality, or it can't. You simply can't apply the 14th to one group, and deny the 14th to another.
THEN WHY HASN'T LAWRENCE LEAD TO THAT? You can't simply apply the 14th to laws limiting marriage and not those putting people behind bars for sex acts.
Again, try to get your mind off this being about homosexuality. It's about MARRIAGE, not HOMOSEXUALITY! No one is advocating we prohibit homosexual behavior! No one is suggesting we BAN homosexuals from society! No one has proposed outlawing homosexual activity! This is about MARRIAGE, and how we define MARRIAGE in this country! Once the state allows marriage to be defined on the basis of sexuality, it MUST apply the 14th amendment protections to ALL marriage based on sexuality equally!
You don't understand what actual precedent will be set. If we can bar homosexuals from marrying then why not from having sex? Again, the courts have traditionally held that out of wedlock sex is more prohibitable than marriage. If we can bar homosexuals from marrying, then why not mixed race couples? Let me guess, because you think the 14th only applies to racial discrimination. If that were true, and if the court rules in that way, then Lawrence will certainly be overturned.
Now, Family is an important concept in our culture, regardless of how much importance you might personally place on it. It is the foundation of our civilization and society. How can Family be harmed with Gay Marriage? Let's look into the future... Imagine a society with no inhibitions about homosexuality, and fully accepting of Gay Marriage on the same equality as traditional marriage... You have a 16-yr-old daughter... you, as a parent, may be inclined to encourage her to have a homosexual relationship as opposed to a traditional relationship, to avoid the pitfalls of pregnancy and the burden of procreating a family. Go out and find a nice girlfriend, and forget about the boys! This will become a preferable culture, because same-sex unions do not have the same burdens and responsibilities as a traditional marriage. Eventually, only the really stupid people are getting traditionally married, opting for getting their "love on" in a different way, where they can escape the burdens and responsibilities associated with Family! From that point, you are only a few generations away from our civilization collapsing, because we aren't procreating and contributing to the survival of the species.
This is where you try to shift gears, because you have gotten your ass kicked on the "it will lead to people marrying a tree" nonsense.
Do you honestly believe that children are going out and have homosexual
Well here we are again.... What "system" would you prefer we have? Do you want to have a Supreme Court full of godless libertarians to make our choices for us, or what? I am unclear on what you propose we do, other than govern our society by the will of the people! It's kind of what we do here, I thought!
I have been over this a hundred times. I prefer the system we have. You do not. You want might makes right at the state level so you can return to lynching black people, arresting homosexuals, fucking your 9 year old cousin and the other disgusting traditions Alabama keeps.
Would I like more libertarians on the court, certainly. I am not so sure it would be a good thing to have nine of them, though, at least not right away. Under our system that is so unlikely it might as well be impossible, so no worries. I can't see much harm in nine civil libertarians.
No, there has been no amendment attempted yet. There has been an Act... DOMA, it was signed into law by Bill Clinton! You can talk about irrelevant examples, and act confidently about your idiocy all you like, but a vast majority of Americans simply do not agree with you. In all the years you've been debating this here, you've not changed a single mind on the issue. People are fairly set on what they believe, and that is not likely to change anytime soon.
Another lie. TYes there has, it has proposed several times. I pointed this out to you before (though not recently).
Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
The 14th doesn't apply, and has never applied, to homosexual marriage! Homosexual people are NOT denied due process! Every "right" a straight person has, is also enjoyed equally by a gay person! Everything that is not permitted to a gay person, is also not permitted for heterosexual people!
If it does not apply to homosexual marriage then how can it apply to homosexual sex? You would have to overturn Lawrence v Texas. Your last argument, again, was rejected in Loving v Virginia.
There is nothing in the Constitution enumerating the right to the Federal government to define marriage, therefore, it is a right reserved by the state and the people. That's the 10th Amendment, in case you have forgotten.
But DOMA is okay. lol. You are so stupid.
A ruling that the court cannot extend 14th amendment protections to marriage laws would overturn Loving v Virginia.
Sorry, but I have read a lot of shit from these guys, and I don't see anything that established these "general moralities" you spoke of. The D of I states that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, but I thought you were opposed to 'religious dogma' being imposed on us?
Are you fucking kidding? You telling me that a major part of Locke's work did not relate to the non agression of force principle?
It is clearly laid out in the DofI that the sole purpose of government is to protect the rights of individual. This all flows and much of the language was lifted directly from it.
From what religious dogma do you believe this comes?
Besides that, you have already acknowledged that morality must be chosen. How can a society then be moral when it tries to dictate the practice of principles through the use of government force or by denying people the equal rights to choose their own course? It can not.
Any "right" we "extend" to homosexuals, must be extended to any other sexual deviant behavior on the same basis. Your parameters are irrelevant, because WE established the parameters. We define when someone is a 'victim' and when they are not. We set the boundaries for what is 'harmful' to others and why. These are all MORAL judgments we've established, and they are largely based on the same religious morality that opposes same-sex marriage.
ZzzzZzzzZzzz. You just keep repeating your bullshit (and you do it over and over even in the same post) though I have fucking trashed it a hundred times, while ignoring the FACTS that prove you wrong. AAAAAAGAIN... If this were true Lawrence v Texas then must lead to overturning laws against thse "sexually deviant" behaviors. It has not, it will not. It won't in regards to marriage.
Moral relativism is the belief that there is no "right" or "wrong" and we all establish our own individual morality. That isn't what I believe, or what I have stated. My viewpoint is more of a "Moral Realism" concept, where collective society establishes the criteria for "right and wrong" through democracy and advocacy within the political process.
That's not moral realism. I know you think you just made that term up, but no... What you you just described is a form of moral relativism, specifically, societal moral relativism. For instance, what you just stated would mean that slavery was moral until the majority opposed it. Treating women as chattel, was moral until the majority opposed it. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany, moral.
